Intersec Magazinehttp://www.intersecmag.co.uk
The Journal of International SecurityThu, 01 Nov 2018 09:20:12 +0000en-UShourly1Compact thermal imaginghttp://www.intersecmag.co.uk/compact-thermal-imaging/
http://www.intersecmag.co.uk/compact-thermal-imaging/#commentsThu, 25 Oct 2018 15:36:32 +0000Jacob Charleshttp://www.intersecmag.co.uk/?p=2120Read more »]]>Shannon Jidas pounds the streets with East Chicago’s finest to see how thermal imaging hands control back to law enforcement officers

As I snapped another picture, my ‘model’ casually mentioned that our photo backdrop was the scene of a double homicide a couple years ago. Nearby, a few ‘kids’ from the block – some of who appeared to be in their mid-forties and malevolent – were interested in what we were doing. Focused on the camera, I didn’t mind the sweat caused by my bulletproof vest, and was thankful for the two other police officers watching our back. It’s a tough street in a tough city. We were standing in the North Harbour neighbourhood of East Chicago, Indiana.
If you haven’t heard of EC, you probably have heard about the city next door; Gary, Indiana is the occasional murder capital of the US and a very sharing neighbour. With Gary to the South and East, one of the biggest steel mills in the world to the North, the South side of Chicago to the West, refineries, smelting plants, harbours, more miles of railroad than street, a legacy of environmental problems and a history as a melting-pot city in a region originally made up of immigrants, East Chicago isn’t the easiest place to be a cop. That’s why we took the new FLIR Breach PTQ136 multifunctional thermal imaging monocular to the streets with the East Chicago Police Department – to show them the many ways FLIR Breach can make their jobs both easier and safer.
Our host for the hot, busy July evening was patrolman John Richmond and his partner Joe Kelnhofer. A 14-year veteran of ECPD, Richmond grew up in a tough section of East Chicago just across the tracks from the steel mill. He works those same streets today, much to the aggravation of lawbreakers who think they can buffalo a man who knows multiple generations of residents. Kelnhofer just completed his first year on the force.
When asked to describe the overall policing situation in the community, Richmond thought for a moment and observed: “We’re a small town with big city problems.”
East Chicago is relatively small in both area and population. The city footprint is 16 square miles, but two of those are harbour and waterway and numerous other acres are occupied by industrial land, railroads and the cattail swamps along the Grand Calumet River and Lake Michigan. That means the city’s 30,000 inhabitants are densely packed into only 10 neighbourhoods.
Those neighbourhoods run the gamut, making East Chicago a city of great contrast. There are fifties and sixties public housing projects sprinkled through areas that could otherwise pass for old working-class historical neighbourhoods in major cities. Some other sections give off a country club-like vibe, looking much like middle-manager suburban subdivisions. Mix in countless factories that range from ‘well-used’ to whatever classification lies beyond ‘post-apocalyptic’, and you have an urban landscape that is both fascinating and challenging.
The city is approximately half Latino and 30 percent African-American, while the remainder is a mix of Polish, German, Serbian and other ethnic backgrounds. Fortunately, racial tension isn’t a huge problem for the city or its police force. That’s a good thing, because drugs and gangs – often transplants from nearby Chicago and Gary – bring plenty of trouble to the community.
In fact, during the nineties when murder rates were significantly higher, the county’s prosecuting attorney declared that Guthrie Street in East Chicago was even more dangerous than any of the more notorious trouble spots in nearby Gary. East Chicago officers take pride in noting that things are better now, but their city still faces challenges.
At 9pm on a sultry night when Lake Michigan breezes only added humidity to the full-moon heat, we cruised by one dimly lit local park that was full of people loitering in the dark. Richmond sourly noted, “We could probably make some arrests right here, right now.” It was a perfect place to press the FLIR Breach into duty.
At only 210g, FLIR Breach adds minimal weight to an officer’s otherwise heavy gear. It can be concealed in a pocket or mounted to a helmet with its mini-rail feature. We pulled over and I handed the thermal monocular to Richmond. He discretely brought it to his face while looking out the open driver’s-side window of his unmarked SUV. “Wow,” was the initial response, followed by: “That’s really cool.”
Another “Wow” was repeated more softly and then: “I can clearly see what everybody is doing”. The officer was awed. He handed the FLIR Breach to his partner, who offered the same reaction before refusing to hand the unit back.
We got out of the vehicle, and Richmond approached several shadowy figures hanging out under a shelter. A few of the men stayed put, offering desultory greetings to the officers, while several others sidled away into the darkness.
They didn’t realise that Kelnhofer was watching everything they were doing through the FLIR Breach. Even through the darkness, Kelnhofer could easily see if the men were dropping drugs or drug paraphernalia into the grass or hiding a gun as they walked away.
Kelnhofer liked the idea that he could record over 1,000 still images or 2.5 hours of video of the scene with the push of a button. “That would be really handy in court,” he pointed out while watching some of the men enter a vehicle with Illinois plates.
On this occasion, Kelnhofer didn’t see anything actionable, though we did check out several locations where the men had lingered while walking away. As we looked around a spruce tree where one of the group had paused, Kelnhofer noted that if the man had dropped a handgun into the shrubbery it would have been easy to locate due to transferred body heat emitting from the firearm. Tonight, however, there was nothing.
Between calls for service and one arrest, the remainder of our night on patrol in EC was spent cruising the streets and alleys looking for suspicious activity. In one instance, we parked on an unlit street corner and conducted a short observation of a known group of troublemakers goofing off in front of a house.
Nearby, another group of residents was sitting in the dark on a doorstep. Richmond engaged them in some friendly conversation. After a few minutes, he allowed them a brief view through the Breach. They were shocked at the ease in which it could quickly and clearly identify people –especially in the Outdoor Alert colour palette, which highlights the warmest parts of the scene in orange. “You can’t hide from that thing,” one of the men said with a note of pain in his voice.
While driving away, Richmond laughed and offered that someone in the group had likely already called their friends down the street and warned them that the police were now equipped (in the words of the resident) with “some kind of Star Wars (expletive deleted).” Indeed, they were.
As we stood talking in the police department parking lot after the shift, Richmond was enthusiastic about the wide variety of uses FLIR Beach holds for officers. “It’s a great tool,” he said, unsure where to begin on the list. “It would be very handy out here (in East Chicago) on patrol, and our gang and narc (narcotics unit) guys would love to have this because of its small size,” Richmond noted.
“It would be great to sit in a UC (undercover) vehicle and look out for people while remaining undetected and still maintaining your peripheral vision,” Richmond mused. “You can also pick out heat signatures from vehicles and know if they’ve been running or sitting,” he added, observing that as the Illinois vehicle at the park drove away, it had clearly visible warm spots on the tires where they had been resting on the pavement.
Kelnhofer was equally impressed. “I liked it a lot!”
he said enthusiastically. “It’s definitely needed for
law enforcement, but I’d also use it for hunting – especially to help find downed deer. It’s a great all-around-awesome product.”
All told, nearly a dozen officers on the ECPD got a chance to handle the Breach during the afternoon and evening ride-along. All were similarly impressed with the compactness, image quality and sheer usefulness of the tiny thermal monocular. They definitely saw its potential as a great new tool that could help the officers become more effective and much safer on the challenging streets of America’s “small town with big city problems”. For more information on the new FLIR Breach, as well as other thermal and night vision products for law enforcement, visit flir by clicking here.

]]>http://www.intersecmag.co.uk/compact-thermal-imaging/feed/0Protecting staffhttp://www.intersecmag.co.uk/protecting-staff/
http://www.intersecmag.co.uk/protecting-staff/#commentsThu, 25 Oct 2018 15:36:06 +0000Jacob Charleshttp://www.intersecmag.co.uk/?p=2118Read more »]]>Don Cameron reports on the importance of preparing for the unexpected and keeping employees safe in times of danger

In the current global climate, we have seen an increased frequency of large-scale natural disasters and criminal activity. Such events usually come without warning and have the potential to cause harm to the safety and wellbeing of large numbers of the population. As an increasing number of businesses turn to remote, lone and field-based ways of working, many employees are being caught up in such incidents while working and travelling.
While it has become common practice to plan and prepare for the practical side of disaster management, such as contingencies for IT systems and emergency office relocation, locating staff and managing their safety during an incident is much more complicated and challenging to address. Yet with your workforce forming the foundation of any business, accounting for employees and protecting them from harm is arguably the most important step to take.
In order to understand how best to respond in times of crisis, it is imperative to identify the potential threats that employees face, and the challenges businesses need to overcome to best protect their staff.
A disaster refers to any large-scale event that harms your employees, business environment or property. The nature of incidents that your business faces will vary greatly depending on several factors; from geography and the work environment to individual ways of working and the job roles performed. Yet it is indisputable that such risks are impacting more people each year as populations grow and the built environment expands to once uninhabited regions of the world.
Natural disasters often strike without warning and have the potential to destroy thousands of properties including homes and businesses. According to The Economist, there were approximately 700 natural disasters including storms, floods, landslides, avalanches, extreme temperatures, droughts and forest fires in 2016 alone. This compares with just over 200 in 1986. Climate change experts predict a continuing increase in natural disasters over coming years, with warmer temperatures and high tides resulting in more flooding, droughts, wildfires and hurricanes. If we look at the last few months alone, we can see several significant examples.
In July, heavy rains in South-Western Japan led to devastating floods and mudslides, which destroyed buildings, covered the land with mud and left thousands of people stranded and displaced. Approximately 2 million people had to abandon their homes and the death toll reached over 100.
In California, wildfires have been destroying over a million acres of land since 23 July. Hundreds of buildings and homes have been destroyed as a result and the death count continues to rise.
The number of terrorist attacks has also risen in recent years. In 2016, 77 countries were affected by terrorism, while Europe experienced the greatest increase. Data revealed that there were 30 attacks in Western Europe in 2016 compared with 23 in 2015, two in 2014 and five in 2013.
Many European countries such as the UK may not be concerned by the risk of natural disasters, but the threat of terrorism is much more prevalent. The current threat level in the United Kingdom from international terrorism is currently set as severe, meaning that an attack is highly likely.
While it remains statistically unlikely that you or your staff will be affected by terrorism – statistics put the chances of being killed in a terror attack at around one in 20 million – the perceived risk by individuals in the current climate is high.
Recent terror activity such as the London Bridge vehicle ramming and stabbing attack in 2017 which left eight people dead and 48 injured, or the Manchester arena bombing also in 2017 that left 23 dead and 139 injured, have created new fears as people are being targeted at any time and in busy locations such as streets, restaurants and entertainment venues.
Other criminal activity such as shootings and riots can also cause harm to large numbers of unsuspecting members of the public. As recent as 26 August, a mass shooting at the Madden video game conference in Jacksonville, Florida, resulted in two deaths and 10 injuries. The incident marked the 234th mass shooting in America in 2018, claiming a total of 337 lives.
In Germany, 6,000 right-wing protestors and around 1,000 counter-protestors took to the streets over 27-28 August this year. Police struggled to stop the thousands of far-right sympathisers as they chased immigrants through the city of Chemnitz hurling bottles and fireworks while giving Hitler salutes and chanting “foreigners out”. Officially, police said two officers, nine far-right protesters and nine counter-protesters were injured in the clashes.
For those working in certain industries, industrial fires and explosions are a particularly prevalent risk that can affect business premises and anyone working within them. On 19 May, a pressure safety valve failed at the Kuraray America chemical facility in Texas, US causing a flash fire. At the time of the incident, 266 employees and contractors were on site. 21 workers were injured by burns from the fire or falls caused by jumping from scaffolding in an attempt to escape. In the UK, a fire broke out on the 22 August at a Shell Higher Olefins chemical plant. Fire engines were sent from five different locations to battle the fire and fortunately all staff were evacuated before any injuries were caused.
All employers hold a legal duty of care towards the safety of their staff. As part of this, “duty-holders are required to establish appropriate organisation and arrangements to deal with emergencies in the workplace” (the Health & Safety Executive). This means that every company is required to have emergency procedures in place with the aim of protecting employees from harm. The failure to answer important questions following an incident, such as who was affected and if they are safe, could leave individuals within the company liable for any harm caused.
Arguably the greatest challenge businesses face as part of their duty of care, is accounting for their employees following an incident. Whether a disaster occurs in a single building, a remote site or an entire region, determining how many staff have been affected quickly and efficiently can prove incredibly difficult. It is unlikely that a business knows where all staff are at all times and it can takes hours or even days to account for everyone.
Conveying crucial information and guidance to a large number of employees poses a second challenge. Communication is key during an emergency as it allows the business to warn nearby employees to stay away from the danger zone or instruct those involved on how to behave to minimise their risk of harm. Strong communication has the potential to prevent further harm and allow the business to continue running as quickly as possible so to reduce down time.
Traditionally, businesses used methods such as phone chains or simple messaging to account for and to communicate with staff. However, these methods are not only time consuming, but can be unreliable in certain situations. If an employee is injured in an incident or is unaware and preoccupied and so fails to answer a message or phone call, how does the business know where they are and if they are affected?
Fortunately, developments in technology and the widespread use of mobile devices today are providing solutions to many of our incident management challenges. Whether it be warning individuals of a nearby incident, providing peace of mind or communicating practical advice necessary to keep safe, technology is able to offer a solution.
Social media initiatives such as Facebook Crisis Response provide a way of reassuring friends and family if located nearby an incident, while SAIP, an app developed by the French Government, alerts phone users of an emergency along with official advice on keeping safe.
In addition, an incident management solution called IncidentEye was recently developed in response to a growing need from businesses to locate and protect staff quickly and efficiently. The solution comprises a mobile app and a monitoring hub that allows an employer to instantly locate staff within an incident zone, determine their safety status and send ongoing communications.
While platforms such as Facebook Crisis Response and SAIP are great for personal use, solutions developed for businesses are able to harness technology to overcome the challenges discussed.
Suitable software systems should be able to communicate with mobile phones to instantly locate employees within an incident zone. By identifying who is in the area of danger, anyone away from harm can be immediately eliminated, allowing response to focus in on those that may need it.
The next step following an incident is to determine whether anyone within the incident zone is in danger. Incident management apps allow a push notification to be sent to employees prompting them to specify whether they are safe or in danger. This allows anyone responding to the incident to focus entirely on those that need assistance.
Communicating from an online hub to an app offers a reliable and efficient way of providing information during an incident. If the hub is available online, communication can be maintained even in situations where internal systems have failed.
A good system will allow the business to tailor communications to specific groups or individuals, so that the right advice can reach the correct people. The types of communications being sent will depend on the situation but could include instructing those in the affected area to evacuate, warning those nearby to avoid the affected area, providing official government advice on how to deal with the situation and updating employees as the incident progresses and once it is resolved.
Following an incident, those involved during the management of employees will likely be expected to report back to the heads of the business with information on how many people were affected and what was done to ensure their safety. A software solution that allows you to locate employees, should offer a simple way to present a final report to the business and answer any concerns they may have had.

Don Cameron, CEO for StaySafe, has over 25 years of experience in developing successful businesses in the IT, Telecoms and service industries. Don has worked for blue-chip organisations such as ICL, Fujitsu and Intergraph in both general management and sales and marketing roles.

Technology has been the cornerstone of mitigating security risks, particularly terrorism in the aviation industry. The X-Ray and Walk-Through Metal Detector (WTMD) are the traditional examples and drone-disabling software an example relevant to a contemporary threat. Readers will find endless material on the value (and limitations!) of technology and the impact it can have on other aspects of operations such as passenger experience, capital budgets and privacy impositions. I, however, would like to explore two risk mitigation measures that are not often considered but can have an equal, or even better, security outcome to technology: design and culture through Security Management System (SeMS).
Infrastructure projects in airports are typically the domain of project managers, architects, engineers and construction companies with security operations usually engaged just prior to construction, at equipment procurement stage, or worst case security may be considered just at handover stage and only then when it involves the airport perimeter or passenger screening checkpoint. A risk-based approach and early involvement of security, for all infrastructure projects regardless of scope, provides airports with significant benefits – not only for security, but across the business.
Early involvement of security provides an opportunity to design out and reduce security vulnerabilities. The key difference between security and all other risks is that the threat itself has intent. The perpetrator is capable of identifying and exploiting vulnerabilities and circumventing mitigations to carry out an attack. Some of the higher-profile attacks, including attempts on the aviation industry are a direct result of exploitation of vulnerabilities such as the ‘underwear’ bomber bypassing security screening by carrying explosives on their person through the WTMD. Some of these vulnerabilities relate directly to a security measure itself, for example, the WTMD cannot detect non-metallic threat items, but some vulnerabilities are caused by infrastructure design. An obvious example is where limited space and inefficient processing at the passenger screening checkpoint and check-in/bag drop generates congestion. A crowded space becomes an attractive target. In addition, the environment being such that the introduction of a larger weapon – eg IED in suitcases (as used in the 2016 Brussels Airport attack) – could be more easily introduced into the space than onto an aircraft.
By designing out vulnerabilities there is a reduced need to overlay security, eg a terminal approach road design that forces a vehicle to reduce speed is likely to lower the specification requirements of the HVM. Also, this may offer the opportunity to exploit different vehicle impact mitigation measures such as street furniture, which may be more aligned with the architectural intent and less visually striking than conventional bollards.
Furthermore, design can take account of potential future needs, eg today’s lighting design to take account of facial recognition technology to be used in the future. Consideration of security needs early in a design project results in reduced operating and capital costs. For example, Arup has researched the capital costs and risk reduction benefit of enhancements to a façade against an explosion (see Case Study overleaf).
Determining the security needs must be risk-based. Risk-based design facilitates security responses that are commensurate, avoiding either ‘over-engineering’ or misdirecting resources and identifies security design needs that may not always be obvious. Additionally, it takes account of different operating environments – business as usual, periods of heightened threat, incident management and recovery. Given these different demands, particularly the latter two situations, engagement with end users and understanding their requirements is critical. What is the critical path into a terminal for ambulance gurneys? What vehicle access do law enforcement and emergency services need during periods of heightened threat and incident response? What data networks do airlines need if check-in has to switch from departures to arrivals during a period of recovery? Design clearly relates to the infrastructure. While it facilitates operations, by its very nature it is typically fixed. In contrast, security culture is much more agile.
Historically, the operational personnel tasked with security duties at airports have been law enforcement agencies, screeners and guards. The nature of their duties mean that they are the last line of defence. Furthermore, the management and investment in resourcing – eg security recruitment and equipment needs – have tended to occur in isolation from the broader management of the airport. This silo approach results in missed opportunities to draw on the presence of a large community of ‘eyes and ears’, is costlier, less efficient and drives sub-optimal security and business outcomes. This can be addressed by establishing a robust and positive security culture within the entire airport community and is achievable with a Security Management System or SeMS.
When designed and implemented correctly, SeMS is a management mechanism that establishes and maintains mind-set and tools in the airport community and airport management system. It fosters behaviour that identifies and reduces risks and allocates limited resources in a manner that enhances security. Indicators of a successful SeMS include the detection of hostile reconnaissance by a land-side tenant employee that results in the disruption of attack planning; a security audit by a third party is welcomed as an opportunity to independently identify opportunities for improvement; a security risk assessment is undertaken for each and every infrastructure project regardless of its scope; the procurement of security equipment is informed by user requirements, operational requirements, whole of life costs and the impact of its deployment on the business beyond security not solely assessed on purchase price; and personnel/staff competency is assessed in real-time and is based on data.
Furthermore, through improved integration of security management into the business, as compared to a standalone operating unit, the challenges that arise from the perception that security is just a cost-centre are eliminated.
Like all management systems and change processes, SeMS establishment is a long-term project that requires commitment from the top and should be spearheaded by a champion. Without these two commitments, the best an airport can hope for is a tidy library of documentation for the regulators to reference during audits. Additionally, the SeMS must be comprehensive and be subject to a regular quality assurance. Arup’s SeMS model comprises seven elements. The first step in the process of establishing a SeMS is to understand how ready your airport is for a SeMS: Is there a sense of urgency to implement or not? What is the baseline knowledge of SeMS? The approach to adopting SeMS will be wholly dependent upon the answer to these two important questions.
The next step is to identify the current maturity of your SeMS. It is likely your airport already has elements of SeMS – eg physical security, internal audit process, airport emergency centre. A maturity assessment will determine the maturity of each SeMS element, in terms of the tools that facilitate and the organisation’s mind-set, so you can then target efforts accordingly. For example, you may already have an internal audit system in place that comprises trained auditors, checklists and information management system. Audits, however, are only undertaken immediately prior to the regulator’s audit, less than ideal results are suppressed, there is no root cause analysis and individuals are penalised for poor results. In this case, the tools used to ensure compliance are relatively mature, however the mind-set associated with compliance and continual improvement is less mature. In contrast, your airport regularly undertakes desktop exercises using security scenarios and everyone commits to addressing lessons learned. However, there is no link between this and the airport’s business continuity system, so issues like media management, clearly defined roles and responsibilities are not available to the security team. In this case, the mind-set for Continual Improvement and Business Continuity is mature, but the tools are immature.
Once your tool and mind-set maturity for each SeMS element is known you can determine what maturity you are seeking to achieve and then target and prioritise enhancement efforts accordingly. Continuing with an example of mature tools, but a less mature mind-set for the Physical Security SeMS element – rather than trying to establish more rigid procurement processes to achieve equipment purchases that better suit the security team’s needs – effort could be spent helping the procurement team better understand their needs by establishing a relationship between your security guards, procurement and finance teams to influence a more holistic approach to equipment procurement. The procurement and finance teams are therefore more likely to consider user requirements, human factors (the equipment-human interface and users’ needs) and whole of life costs rather than basing investment decisions on purchase price only.
Celebrating success is critical to ongoing support for SeMS. Regularly assessing your SeMS maturity will assist in measuring maturation, but lack of wholesale improvement should not be concluded as a failure – it may be that the time to realise the benefits of efforts is longer term than the frequency of your regular maturity assessment. The other obvious measure of success is where change can be quantified, for example an increase in the reporting of security risks or suspicious activity, reduction in patrol costs through the sharing of resources with safety and reduced insurance premiums as SeMS becomes a recognised risk mitigation measure. Less obvious are the qualitative measures such as seeking out personal stories of success, looking for examples of cross-team interaction not previously seen and identifying new references to security in executives’ public statements. These too should be identified and celebrated.
The value of Safety Management System (SMS) is well documented. While SeMS is not as widely adopted as SMS, the benefits are similar in the security context: better security and business outcomes, eg improved passenger perception of security; a framework to measure security performance against investment, (ie return on investment); the opportunity to break down silos and join up airport operations with the business (eg real-time analysis of training needs); and, greater flexibility to respond to changing threats.
The investment in infrastructure will increase as the number of passengers increases. So too will investment in security as the threat changes. It is imperative that we look beyond technology to manage the security risks. The value of security in design and SeMS are realised by those airports that have embraced these opportunities. I therefore pose the challenge to you: is your airport relying on technology alone and what could design and SeMS do for your community, your passengers, bottom line and, of course, security?

Stacey Peel – Arup’s Global Aviation Security Leader – has worked throughout the Asia-Pacific, Europe, Middle East and North Americas regions across the breadth of the aviation security spectrum: risk based-design, security culture, regulation and government/national policy, risk management, operations and technology.

]]>http://www.intersecmag.co.uk/design-and-culture/feed/0The evolution of counter IEDhttp://www.intersecmag.co.uk/the-evolution-of-counter-ied/
http://www.intersecmag.co.uk/the-evolution-of-counter-ied/#commentsThu, 25 Oct 2018 15:33:48 +0000Jacob Charleshttp://www.intersecmag.co.uk/?p=2114Read more »]]>Cindy Barfoot explores the history of bomb disposal and the long journey to the advanced techniques and technology currently used to make explosives safe

Counter IED (Improvised Explosive Devices) methods and technologies were first developed on an industrial scale to support bomb disposal operations during the Northern Ireland Troubles back in the seventies.
Much knowledge was subsequently acquired by UK forces during the course of this 30-plus years operation, contributing significantly to both the development of Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV) and other technologies used to effectively detect and defeat IED threats. This included the development of the . . .

]]>http://www.intersecmag.co.uk/the-evolution-of-counter-ied/feed/0The future of public securityhttp://www.intersecmag.co.uk/the-future-of-public-security/
http://www.intersecmag.co.uk/the-future-of-public-security/#commentsThu, 25 Oct 2018 15:33:18 +0000Jacob Charleshttp://www.intersecmag.co.uk/?p=2112Read more »]]>Martin Cronin reflects on technologies we can expect to see over the coming years to give us the advantage over terrorists

If you’re a follower of security theatre, you know that the American stage in 2018 has had a compelling season so far. Police in several American cities wore riot gear while white supremacists and counter protestors marched in the streets. Schools, shaken by two consecutive shootings, poured state and federal money into security capabilities previously reserved for prisons. And New York City, which welcomed 61.8 million tourists in 2017, installed 1,500 bollards after a . . .

In revolutions, those that fail to adapt quickly tend to get left behind. Security is in the perilous position of being left behind by an accelerating and evolving digital revolution, just when it might be needed the most. This has big implications for the people at the helm of security and is further compounded by the need to consider the actions and intent of dynamic and intelligent adversaries. How can a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) and their team keep pace? What’s . . .

]]>http://www.intersecmag.co.uk/time-to-react/feed/0Time to get smarthttp://www.intersecmag.co.uk/time-to-get-smart-2/
http://www.intersecmag.co.uk/time-to-get-smart-2/#commentsThu, 25 Oct 2018 15:32:06 +0000Jacob Charleshttp://www.intersecmag.co.uk/?p=2108Read more »]]>Andrea Sorri provides an introduction to the cities of tomorrow and wonders what it is that makes a city smart

Human beings have come a long way to become the intelligent creatures we are today. The key was and still is the ability to adapt to our environment by evolving new skills and biological attributes to improve our survival. This pattern is replicated in the progress we’ve seen in our technology-driven world. We’re constantly developing and combining new technology and devices to improve our quality of life and adjust to our modern-day needs. The . . .

]]>http://www.intersecmag.co.uk/time-to-get-smart-2/feed/0Danger for the Irish borderhttp://www.intersecmag.co.uk/danger-for-the-irish-border/
http://www.intersecmag.co.uk/danger-for-the-irish-border/#commentsThu, 20 Sep 2018 06:51:49 +0000Jacob Charleshttp://www.intersecmag.co.uk/?p=2098Read more »]]>Timothy Compston looks at the potential security ramifications of changes to the management of the Irish border post Brexit.

The high level of uncertainty that still surrounds the shape of the relationship between the UK and the EU as Brexit looms on the horizon is certainly troubling. This was underscored recently when the UK government’s international trade secretary, Liam Fox, suggested that the probability of a no deal had increased to 60-40. Alongside the economic implications of Brexit many are concerned about the ramifications for security in and around the Irish border if we end up at the harder end of the Brexit scale.

The clear and present danger, from a security perspective, is that a no deal scenario, where the UK falls back onto WTO (World Trade Organisation) rules – and moves away from free movement for EU citizens – or, for that matter, any Brexit which requires new and visible infrastructure on the 310 mile (499 kilometre) Irish border – the only land border with the remaining EU 27 – could lead to an escalation in terrorist activity. There is also the question of where the Common Travel Area (CTA) which predates the UK and Ireland joining EU will fit into the post Brexit puzzle.

When giving evidence back in May to the parliamentary European Scrutiny Committee the Northern Ireland secretary, Karen Bradley, acknowledged the reality that there are a small number of people who believe the way to achieve their aims is through violence and who would seek to destroy any physical infrastructure associated with policing the Irish border: “We have to be very careful when we look at arrangements and the suggestions that are being put forward about how we would police it, how we would manage it should infrastructure be needed at some place in order to maintain the customs arrangement.”

There have, of course, been positive noises from the parties involved in Brexit negotiations about their desire to minimise disruption at the border, although only time will tell if they can square the circle on thorny issues like freedom of movement and customs arrangements. Referring to the importance of maintaining the Common Travel Area in her Mansion House speech on Brexit at the beginning of the year, the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, stressed that: “We will work to deliver a practical solution that allows the maintenance of the Common Travel Area with the Republic [of Ireland], while protecting the United Kingdom’s immigration system.” She went on to say that: “Nobody wants a return to the borders of the past.”

Fast-forwarding to July and the Prime Minister travelled to Belfast to speak in the wake of the Chequers agreement and subsequent UK Government white paper proposal which seeks to align the UK with the EU on traded goods but not services. She reiterated the need – twenty years on – to protect the peace process and uphold the binding commitments in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement between the two governments and NI political parties: “Not to seek a solution would be to resume our career as an independent sovereign trading nation by betraying our nearest neighbour.” Her comments were in the face of Eurosceptics in her party saying that the UK should simply declare that it would not impose any checks on its side of the border and simply leave it up to the EU and the Irish Government to control things.

For both the EU, in the shape of the chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, and the Irish government the imperative to prevent a hard border is certainly high on the agenda and they continue to reiterate the importance of having a backstop on the Irish border question should no agreement be reached which could, potentially, mean in the absence of another solution for the border that Northern Ireland would, to all intents and purposes, remain in the EU customs union. This is something which remains problematic for the British who do not want the result of such a backstop to effectively create a border down the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, a scenario which Theresa May has been clear that no British Prime Minister could countenance. Of course, the hope is that the UK Government’s latest moves with regards to the trading of goods – with a ‘common rule book’ to avoid friction at the Irish border – will negate the need for any backstop in the first place.

Some may argue that the danger of a ramp-up in violence, if there is a change to the status quo post Brexit is being overplayed. As a backdrop to current developments it is true that, from a security perspective, the situation in Northern Ireland is a far cry from the height of the Troubles. The latest ‘Police Recorded Security Situation Statistics’ report from the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland) covering April 2017 – March 2018 offers some comfort on the level of violence as there were only two murders related to the security situation in the past year. To put this into some sort of historical perspective the murder rate has reduced 39-fold in the 28 years covered by the report, in a time that the Good Friday (Belfast) and Stormont House agreements came into play, devolution materialised – with a NI Assembly up and running – and power-sharing by sworn enemies like Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness.

Paralleling a downward trend in terrorist incidents there has been a major draw down of security force numbers and the dismantling of much of the counter terrorism infrastructure associated with the ‘Troubles’ – watchtowers, checkpoints, armoured vehicles, military helicopters – and the opening of unmarked roads and lanes across the border which had been blocked off. Today the reality of driving from North to South or South to North is pretty similar to travelling between England and Scotland or even between different counties within those countries. People may live on one side of the border and work or even go to school on the other.

This is not to say that there have not been bumps along the road in recent years. The fact that the two main political parties in Northern Ireland are now unable to come to an agreement to go back into government together, since Sinn Féin walked out – and then, more recently, accusations that a deal was in the offing only for the DUP to get cold feet – has created a political vacuum as the Brexit process moves forward. Sectarianism still exists under the surface and on the terrorism front there are a small number of extremists – and their supporters – who are intent on creating instability with dissident republicans and trouble in Londonderry/Derry over the summer being a case in point. These terrorist groupings may seek to use Brexit as an excuse to further their own agenda by directing violence at any new infrastructure – and those manning and protecting it – that appears to implement the working of future trading arrangements and controls the movement of people across the border.

Given this backdrop, as Brexit looms it is going to be vital that community representatives and politicians temper their language so as not add fuel to the flames being stoked by other parties who are simply not interested in engaging in the political process. At the end of last year Doug Beattie, the justice spokesperson for the Ulster Unionist party, criticised Chris Hazzard the South Down MP of Sinn Féin (SF) for, in his words, “openly talking about a return to violence and civil disorder.” The comments Beattie was referring to came when Hazzard was speaking at a Westminster press conference about the reaction on the ground to the possibility of border customs posts or other hardware: “An awful lot of the focus has been on maybe dissident republican organisations and threats, but it is wider than that – it goes right down to a feeling of civil disobedience. When you talk to normal people in civic society they are very, very angry and frustrated at even the thought of a customs post going up.”

Another potentially destabilising consequence of a harder Brexit is, of course, a renewed push by nationalists and republicans for a border poll. Interestingly, at the end of July it seemed that Sinn Féin’s new president, Mary Lou McDonald, was inclined to put this onto the backburner given the disruption around Brexit and was quoted in the Irish News as saying: “It is not my preferred option or our preferred option that we deal with the issue of Irish unity in a climate that is unsteady or unstable or chaotic, in other words in the context of a crash Brexit or a very hard Brexit.” However, this was not well received by many SF supporters and she, subsequently, rowed back on holding off on a border poll, so a poll at the earliest opportunity is very much back on the party’s wish list. An interesting aside to all of this is, of course, the rush by many in Northern Ireland who would class themselves as Unionist and British – especially from the middle classes – to apply for Irish passports. Something they can do thanks to the Good Friday Agreement as people born in NI can choose to be British citizens, Irish citizens or both. Consequently, post Brexit a point may be reached where a majority in Northern Ireland are EU citizens living outside the EU.

Given the uncertainty in the air surrounding Brexit we have already seen, as a precautionary measure, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) take steps to put on hold the sale of three police stations that it was planning to dispose of including at Warrenpoint. The chief constable of the PSNI, George Hamilton, when giving evidence in the House of Commons to the Northern Ireland Affairs committee on June 27, underscored the challenges ahead and his frustration regarding who to turn to so decisions could be made on additional officers: “Trying to find the appropriate authority within the system who is taking responsibility for co-ordinating the response to Brexit as it relates to the border between the EU and the UK or the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is challenging.”

Regarding the police stations, he felt that it makes sense to retain them for now even though they currently have no operational role: “With so many unanswered questions, with these pieces of real estate strategically placed —not necessarily right on the border, but within proximity — we do not know what the requirements are going to be of immigration, of HMRC, of ourselves, of any other number of other agencies.” He did acknowledge that if they had some post-Brexit role that they might be in the firing line: “We agree, Chairman, that if they were to be used in a post-Brexit era for security or immigration purposes or other broader policing and statutory functions that they may well become the target of attention from violent dissident Republicans, so we do not have some agenda to maintain these.”

In terms of the ‘stocktake paper’ which the PSNI has just produced around policing and Brexit, the chief constable told the committee that three elements were at the forefront, namely: “Tighter immigration control and maintaining the CTA [Common Travel Area], the fact that any variances will be exploited by people wanting to do us harm, and the fact that the UK and Brussels and Dublin do not want to have any physical infrastructure at the border – what are the implications of that?”

Looking ahead, it has to be hoped that whatever shape Brexit finally materialises into calm heads will prevail and that it does not cause issues for the security forces in Northern Ireland, or the wider peace process, and, crucially, if there is an upsurge in violence the right level of resources are in place to deal with this eventuality. It is hard to envisage a return to the scale of bombings and shootings that were all too common in the 60s, 70s, and 80s and early 90s, Northern Ireland has changed and so too has the Republic of Ireland, but a lower level terrorist incidents and public disorder cannot be discounted.

Timothy Compston is a journalist and PR professional who specialises in security issues. He studied International Relations and Strategic Studies at Lancaster University, is PR Director at Compston PR and a previous Chairman of both the National Committee and CCTV PR Committee of the British Security Industry Association.

]]>http://www.intersecmag.co.uk/danger-for-the-irish-border/feed/0Security in schoolshttp://www.intersecmag.co.uk/security-in-schools/
http://www.intersecmag.co.uk/security-in-schools/#commentsThu, 20 Sep 2018 06:51:28 +0000Jacob Charleshttp://www.intersecmag.co.uk/?p=2096Read more »]]>Cris Francis examines what can be done to the perimeter of educational establishments to ensure the continued safety of those that study there

Every day, over 30,000 schools across the UK become second homes to more than 10 million children. Within these learning institutions, young minds are developed, moulded and inspired. The trust that parents place daily in school staff not only to educate their kids, but protect them from harm is the foundation on which this essential service lies.
A secure learning environment, however, relies on far more than just a diligent and committed staff within classroom walls. A comprehensive security infrastructure and regime ensures that visitors, students and teachers alike are welcomed into a safe space while deterring and keeping unwanted visitors out. Grounds protected by secure perimeters, good access control and surveillance systems are the foundation of a healthy learning environment.
To discover if as much as possible is being done to give students and teachers peace of mind, Jacksons Fencing commissioned research for a special report: Protecting The Future. The report polled 1,000 parents (a nationally representative sample), asking them about a range of security issues. Joining them were the views of 280 teachers (including nearly 50 head teachers) and 75 architects.
It found that head teachers are faced with a difficult balancing act between providing appropriate levels of security and not enough. While 31 percent of parents feel that school security is over the top these days, a quarter don’t think their child’s school has been securely designed. A similar disparity is found among teachers, where a quarter find security measures are excessive while three in ten say their schools have weaknesses in their perimeters. Of most concern is that 6 percent of teachers simply don’t feel that their school is secure enough.
It’s clear that current perimeter standards are inadequate. A third of teachers and 36 percent of parents know of children leaving school during the day without permission. A further 40 percent of teachers know of trespassers coming on site.
These incidences occur despite 80 percent of heads having had their perimeter and gates inspected within the past five years, leading to the conclusion that inspectors are overlooking key design flaws.
In an environment of increased capacity pressure and harsh budget constraints, perimeter maintenance and refurbishment can easily slip down the list of priorities. With more students than ever before, it is increasingly important that the key security issues affecting security in schools are identified so that they can be mitigated.
The research reveals that parents’ primary concern matches that of teachers: trespassers. Their concerns aren’t unfounded. Two fifths of parents and staff have heard of unauthorised visitors getting on site. This is exacerbated by the use of premises and grounds outside of school hours for community, sports and other activities. The vast majority of teachers say their schools allow access to members of the community whether for evening clubs and events, special open days or otherwise (88 percent). Schools are also accessible in other ways, with a third of those surveyed having grounds bisected by a public footpath.
Other physical challenges are presented by a schools’ layout. Teachers said school security is most affected by having more than one entrance (56 percent), followed by multiple buildings (34 percent) and areas not easily visible to staff (30 percent). Some schools are made even less secure by poor control over access. It was revealed that over one in 10 schools have no gates (13 percent). All of these issues combine to make keeping unwanted visitors out and pupils in challenging.
With three quarters of head teachers feeling solely responsible for pupil safety, it’s no wonder their biggest headache is children leaving without permission and putting themselves at risk. Unauthorised exits are worryingly common, known to happen by 36 percent of parents and a third of teachers. Ultimately, poor access control and compromised perimeter protection is allowing these exits to take place, including nearly half of kids who leave through a door and those who climb the fence (24 percent) or squeeze through a gap in the boundary (8 percent).
What’s particularly worrying is the ages of those getting out without supervision. A quarter of parents know of primary-aged pupils leaving school, with 7 percent citing incidents of children under six.
Undoubtedly contributing to unauthorised exit and entry are the weaknesses in perimeters identified by teachers. Fences present a number of issues: ageing (30 percent), instability (12 percent) and gaps (11 percent). Although 64 percent of heads have replaced their fencing and gates at least once, problems continue.
While teachers and parents expressed fears about schools being not secure enough, architects point to issues with perimeter specifications, which aren’t keeping pace with societal changes. New schools benefit from a raft of compliance points and guidelines, including the provision that there should be a single main site entrance. While logical, this isn’t much help to the majority (67 percent) of all schools built between 1944 and 1976.
Nearly three quarters of architects find that replacement fencing and gate specifications are usually the original ones (71 percent), allowing existing issues to be perpetuated into the future. Part of the issue appears to be budget, which architects identify as the greatest challenge when installing school fencing. This is particularly concerning given the number of architects saying schools are negatively affected by multiple entrances (89 percent) and an old perimeter (72 percent).
While there is no quick or catch-all solution for the range of security issues faced by schools today, architects are well positioned to help head teachers both protect and welcome their pupils.
First, good communication between architects and school leaders, including those responsible for the management of school facilities, is crucial. It’s no surprise that safety concerns are exacerbated by the fact that four in 10 heads in the study did not know where to go to find out more about school security and access control. By providing advice and directing them towards relevant resources, architects can play an instrumental part in improving safety and security standards when called upon. Physical safeguarding, meanwhile, should perhaps be considered for inclusion in the Department for Education (DfE) standards and statutory guidance for auditing by Ofsted where its current position does not support evaluating perimeter security.
Being able to offer clear guidance relies on first having a good knowledge of current standards on fencing and gates. Nearly all (95 percent) architects are familiar with Secured by Design (SBD), the national police crime prevention initiative through which products can be accredited by meeting set criteria. Encouragingly, half of architects are seeing the use of SBD standards increasingly specified.
One of the most widely accepted security accreditation standards is delivered through certification by the Loss Prevention Certification Board. Its LPS 1175 security rating (SR) system tests products and awards security ratings from SR1 up to SR5 (in the case of fencing). The ratings are based on how long a product can withstand a sustained attack with different classes of tools. Unlike the case with SBD, half of architects don’t know about LPS 1175. There is an excellent opportunity here for architects to offer more security options to both schools and other clients, tailoring specifications to individual site needs.
The school fence, entrance gates and access control should be considered not only for today, but also in anticipation of the future. To ensure an appropriate and futureproof perimeter strategy, a thorough risk assessment should be carried out. This should include area demographics, crime rates, access points, types of risk, aesthetics, usage and the local landscape.
Access control is not only about where people enter the school site, but also how and when. While over half (56 percent) of teachers say their school has more than one entrance, where practicable, these should be reviewed, ideally to provide one main access point located in clear view of the reception or school office, to allow natural surveillance of pupils, staff, visitors and vehicle access. Where there are other access points, it’s good practice to restrict access to during peak times or as required. Plan as well for clearly displayed signs that indicate access times and direct all other visitors to the main entrance.
Depending on their location, schools are vulnerable to different risks, from theft and vandalism to arson and anti-social behaviour. Public buildings can be targeted for their construction materials, such as copper and steel. Other risks include heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic, deliveries and fencing which young pupils might be tempted to climb. Any perimeter solution should be tailored to meet a site’s specific risks.
One fifth of parents describe school security as over the top and prison-like. It’s clear, however, that the school environment needs to project a welcoming feeling while keeping those within its boundaries safe. Many security fences are available in a range of colours and styles, which can soften a perimeter’s appearance. In many cases, colour-coated metal railings will be most suitable, while for nurseries and primary schools, timber fencing might be preferable for its ‘friendlier’ appearance and greater privacy.
A school’s security and access needs change throughout the day, requiring an operations-friendly layout. Heavy pedestrian and vehicular traffic at peak times of day, such as immediately before or after school hours, benefit from separate traffic routes to reduce the risk of accidents. While nearly half (45 percent) of schools employ manual gates exclusively, there are benefits to both manual and automated gates and often a combination is most appropriate.
While managing access is integral to security and safety, it’s equally important to ensure that a school can be evacuated quickly and safely in the event of a major incident and that unobstructed access is provided for emergency services.
Along with the physical environment, it’s important to take a good look at the school’s natural landscape. Factors like buildings and ground conditions need to be assessed to ensure that fences, gates and barriers are anchored on firm foundations. Given that over one-third of parents know of children leaving the site by climbing over the perimeter, it’s vital to check the fence line for potential natural or man-made climbing aids, such as overhanging branches, parked vehicles or storage bins.
Second only to creating a positive learning environment, teachers revealed that keeping staff and students safe is their top priority. While there is no doubt that staff have children’s best interests at heart, the research reveals some unsettling trends.
Teachers and heads are not alone, however, in their efforts to protect their pupils. By working collaboratively with architects to evaluate their site’s risks and security needs, they can specify appropriate perimeter solutions that are both welcoming and protective. A better understanding of security standards and the certified or approved products available, combined with a heightened awareness of threats and vulnerabilities, can help architects deliver sound advice. Our schools, students and teachers deserve good protection. We can ensure this happens by working together.

Cris Francis is Head of Commercial Sales at Jacksons Fencing and has over 10 years’ experience in the security industry, with expertise in advising clients on perimeter security and access control.

Imagine a world in which people can travel effortlessly between countries and states. One in which physical barriers are a thing of the past. Where security is delivered by technology – passports with biometric chips and borderlines that are protected by intelligent fibre optic cables.
For security experts, this represents the future of border management. With cutting-edge technologies reshaping outdated processes, collecting reams of data and delivering operational efficiencies.
The last decade has borne witness to a number of extraordinary changes driven by digitalisation. Some of the world’s oldest industries and largest organisations have been altered beyond recognition – revamped entirely as legacy processes are replaced and business models transformed.
The rise of digital technologies and the rate of change has been rapid and unprecedented. In the face of such innovation, the only option is to evolve. Adapt or die. Either keep pace with progress or be left trailing in its wake.
There are few, if any, legacy industries that have been left untouched by digital disruption. And border security is no exception. For governments, state-of-the-art software represents a huge opportunity – and challenge – when it comes to border operations.
A recent report by Accenture, entitled Crossing Boundaries: Emerging Technologies At The Border, explored how emerging technologies could help agencies tackle not only their near-term challenges, but also help lay the foundation for a sustainable future
It surveyed almost 100 leaders in border agencies across nine countries, including the UK and US, and found that 92 percent of respondents were willing to adopt next-generation technologies in order to enhance operations, despite the challenges involved.
The research also revealed that more than two-thirds believe that the introduction of new digital technologies will help to both reduce risk and improve security.
Border management is a complex operational process, which poses a unique set of challenges. Agents are faced with record volumes of traffic, from both trade and travel. And they constantly have to monitor new and evolving security threats, keep abreast of legislative changes and deal with cutbacks and budgetary restraints. All while managing a complex and variable mix of opportunities, threats and risks.
So, the focus for governments has been on investing, adopting and integrating technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), biometrics and distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) to improve management and security.
The principle question operators face when it comes to integrating new technologies is: how do you layer them for operational efficiency? Different countries face different threats, they have different laws and procedures. Also, as technology solutions advance so too does criminal activity. Meaning that to create a watertight security network, agencies need to keep abreast of the latest developments and innovate as quickly – preferably quicker – as the threats that they face.
What Accenture’s report makes clear is that border agencies understand how vital innovation is to improving operations, and how technology can enhance management protocols and help officials overcome the unique challenges involved.
Two countries that demonstrate the different challenges facing defence and security officials when it comes to border management are the UK and US. In the UK, the imminent departure from the EU has brought about a particular kind of pressure, as agencies look to reform and restructure their systems to support post-Brexit immigration and security measures.
This has led to the involvement of EU-funded technology projects, such as PROTECT, which is developing a biometrics-based personal ID system for border surveillance. With the idea being that biometrics will reduce the need for passport control, while at the same time enhancing security and contributing to free-flowing and faster border control.
In regard to physical border operations – where the issues faced by agencies are more complicated than those at passport control points – biometrics has yet to identify an effective measure for scanning people in vehicles. The current view is that the process would be quite similar to the current protocols and would not be quite so seamless.
For the management of physical borders, the situation has evolved beyond the capabilities of stop-and-search measures, traditional perimeter patrols and official manned checkpoints at borders, seaports and airports. The needs vary from country to country, but the measures taken range from increasing the level of vetting of new arrivals, capping the number of new arrivals, rising security checks and processes at official entry points and expanding border patrols across the entire length of their borderline.
This problem is particularly pronounced in the United States, whose only two land borders include the more than 5,500 miles it shares with Canada (the world’s longest border length) and the 1,954 miles it shares with Mexico. Both of which run through remote regions that are largely desolate and difficult to police. And that’s before you factor in the country’s 15,000 airports, 95,000-plus miles of shoreline and 328 ports of entry.
In the US, the continued reliance upon physical barriers and security checkpoints alone is impractical. Customer and Border Protection (CBP) officials are under strain to not only investigate criminals and trafficking rings, but also apprehend unauthorised entries and confiscate contraband – all while maintaining the lawful movement of travellers and goods.
It’s nearly impossible to physically secure the thousands of miles of borders and shoreline. But smart technologies, especially those that can analyse and interpret deep data pools, enable agencies to construct a virtual net that is less vulnerable and more difficult to penetrate.
The idea is that by employing a combination of different digital technologies that interconnect and complement one another, border agencies can streamline processes for lawful border crossings and while tightening the systemic gaps available to be exploited by bad actors.
A result of the need to innovate and integrate cutting-edge technologies to make operations more efficient while maintaining border integrity has been the initiative between the Department for Homeland Security and Silicon Valley (DHS Silicon Valley Innovation Program).
The partnership – which includes DHS Science & Technology (S&T) and CBP – has been working to implement technologies that enhance the situational awareness of border patrol agents, taking into consideration tough terrain. But maintaining efficiency and integrity across the entire length of a border can be difficult to achieve, especially with different teams operating at different locations.
In combating the problem, the program has seen some big success with the introduction of IoT-based small unmanned aerial vehicles (SUAVs). But for the US Department of Defense (DOD) the priority remains on improving the security of imperfect environments. With government officials looking to move toward intelligent sensors that can make use of the assets already in place and provide intelligent and actionable insights.
Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) is one of the most advanced, state-of-the-art sensing technologies that can be deployed to monitor borderlines and unite the various agencies and departments in security operations. DAS technology can deliver unrivalled detection of threatening activities, including people walking, excavation and tunnelling activity, fence climbing and cutting or even potential failures of existing security infrastructure.
DAS works by converting fibre optic cables into an ecosystem of highly sensitive, individual vibrational sensors. By harnessing cutting-edge photonics, advanced artificial intelligence and edge computing, DAS solutions can detect, classify and inform on range of events and activities with confidence. It can provide clear, confident discrimination between the different threats that might occur on a border and give operatives specific alarms to enable quick straightforward decision making.
DAS solutions can cover borders of any distance, creating a ‘smart barrier’, relaying data, detecting disturbances and providing alerts across the entire length along which it’s deployed. For agents, continuous, round-the-clock monitoring enables greater level of detection and smoother direction of responses in real-time.
By mapping out the entire border – and having access to a continuous stream of information regarding the perimeter’s security – agencies can optimise management processes, increase cooperation between border personnel and vastly improve coordination with the officials of neighbouring countries.
When it comes to physical border security, smart technologies are becoming a necessity – revolutionising management processes and providing officials with a far more complete picture of their operations than has previously been available.
By giving border agencies access to intelligent and actionable insights, officials are better coordinated and in a stronger position to respond to potential threats in the shortest amount of time. But governments need to equip agencies with technologies that work together and facilitate a systems approach to surveillance and intelligence. This should include access to SUAVs, drones, unattended sensors such as DAS, and other systems that are capable of machine learning and remote surveillance advancements.
Given the emergence of such technologies, and the pressing issues facing border agencies – including restricted budgets, shifting security threats and demands for secure and seamless movement – the implementation of point solutions will not be enough. What’s needed is a combination of different, interconnected technologies that can address the unique operational challenges inherent in border management. This is the only way to ensure agents can stay ahead of the many complicated and diverse threats they face.

Stuart Large is Sales & Product Line Director at Fotech Solutions and previously spent three years with NuTech. He also spent more than 10 years with Sondex, holding the roles of Technical Sales responsible for sales in China, FSU and Eastern Europe; Product Line Leader and Global Account Manager. He holds a Master of Engineering degree from Cambridge University.